Monday, August 31, 2009

Benefits of Socialism

2009 Aug. 31

Letters to the EditorThe Capital Timestctvoice@madison.com

Brendan Connelly writes (http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/463933) that he’s working his “butt off every day to provide … the essentials of life [for himself and his 4 kids] as I realize that health care is not a right of birth”. He wants to “obliterate the silly notion of socialized health care”.

Brendan, I don’t have any kids of my own, but I gladly pay taxes so that yours can have the benefit of socialized schools, libraries, clean water, reliable sewerage, streets and sidewalks, police and fire protection, garbage and snow removal, and so on. What happens to your kids, Brendan, if you’re hurt on the job and can’t work any more? What if you succumb to a heart attack because you’ve been working your butt off? Suppose you contract hepatitis; can you come up with 80 grand a year for dialysis, or will your kids have to watch you turn yellow and die?

Well, for the most part, nothing will happen to your kids, because we, your nabors, will still be taking care of them. Except for one thing: their health. Don’t you think it’s kind of odd that their health matters more to me than it does to you — that I’M still willing to look out for them, even if you can’t?

That’s all that socialism is, Brendan, nabors looking out for each other in an organized, efficient manner. Sure, health care wasn’t a “right of birth” for Thomas Jefferson’s kids, but neither were schools or sanitation; the reason that they’re universally available today is because citizens like you and me insisted that our government MAKE them rights, so our kids would have a better world to live in than we did.

The technical term for this is “progress”. The technical term for the result is “civilization”.

Oh, and that dialysis? The government socialized it. It’s rationed. But not the way you may be thinking. It’s rationed upwards, so that EVERYBODY can get it. Thanks, nabors!

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Oath or Affirmation

The following letter to the editor appeared in today’s edition of The Capital Times of Madison (http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/letters/461802):

= = = = = =

I'm an atheist, which, according to various polls, is the least trusted of any minority group. Less trusted than racial minorities, less trusted than gays.

Before giving testimony in a court of law, one is required to put his or her hand on a Bible and swear to tell the truth "so help me God." An atheist in that situation is faced with two very bad choices. One could lie by saying "yes," affirming belief in a god, even though the person deems him to be as fictional as Daffy Duck while having one hand upon a book he or she consider a fairy tale.

The other option is to be true to the oath of honesty by saying, "No, I cannot swear to any god, as I do not believe." In that case, the court will simply use a secular oath that threatens the person with penalties of perjury in place of God's wrath and risk of eternal damnation.

Atheists are forced to either lie -- which breaks their oath to tell the truth before they even start to testify -- or they out themselves before a jury that deems atheists to be the least trustworthy minority group there is. Ironically, being fully honest and refusing to swear to a god I don't believe in will most likely influence jurors to give my testimony less credibility, since, as polls show, atheists are considered the least trusted minority.

Just imagine the outrage that would exist if before testifying, people were asked about their sexual orientation.

Karl SchubertWauwatosa

= = = = = =

Here’s my follow-up letter:

= = = = = =

Karl Schubert's letter of Aug. 13 complains that atheists who wish to testify in court face the dilemma of having to swear "so help me God" (whom they don't believe in, making it a lie right off the bat) or refusing to do so (thereby opening themselves up to contempt of court charges or, if allowed to testify anyway, prejudicing the jury against them).

Unfortunately, this is the position that a lot of atheists are placed in due to the ignorance of court officials about a perfectly acceptable alternative, one which I've used myself. When it's your turn to be sworn in, quietly approach the judge and say "Your honor, I don't do oaths. May I affirm under penalty of perjury?". Since this option is mentioned 3 times in the US Constitution, you should be OK, tho the judge and clerk may have to consult a bit before they proceed.

The real question in my mind is why, in an era where people justifiably have more to fear from jail time for perjury than over burning in Hell, the default witness-sincerity test is still the oath rather than the affirmation.

= = = = = =Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." [Note absence of “so help me God”.]